9 not being native people.” Afterwards, in its final written arguments, the State reiterated that the mentioned Community “[were] not native people,” but people “that conserv[e] a community state,” reason for which they do not have the right to ancestral property they are claiming over [specific] lands.” 20. In their final written arguments, the representatives indicated that the State “[would] disqualify the condition of indigenous of the Garífuna people and refer to them as a mere ethnic minority, categorizing them simply as afro-descendants.”14 They added that the State did not argue it at the correct procedural moment, given it had it “at its disposal throughout the entire proceeding before the Inter-American Commission and the majority of the procedure before this Court and that it did not contest it at any time, being until the moment of the statements that it [sought] to introduce arguments it did not include in its answer,” which the representatives considered “[a] violation to the principle of procedural loyalty and good faith.”15 Additionally, they argued that “[t]he State itself, throughout the proceedings, has acknowledged the right of the Community of Triunfo de la Cruz, thus a change in their theory of the case at this time is unacceptable”16 and that “the argument introduced in a timebarred manner by the State regarding the alleged possession of the land by the Hicaque people [would] not be admissible.”17 21. In its final oral observations, the Commission indicated “the seriousness of the fact that the State in this hearing tried […] to question the indigenous nature of the Garífuna Community of Triunfo de la Cruz, which has not only reclaimed its rights as such […] before domestic authorities but […] has [also] turned to the […] Inter-American Court in its quality of indigenous people, because that is how they self-identify.”18 Additionally, in its final written arguments, it added that “the fact that [the Community] is the result of a syncretism between indigenous people that used and occupied the land prior to the colonization [and] afrodescendent communities, and that they had gone through a series of adaptations to their historic realities, does not eliminate the condition of indigenous people nor do they rest relevance from the criterion of self-identification.” Finally, the Commission reiterated that “neither within the framework of the domestic claims nor within the framework of the InterAmerican proceeding before the Commission, the State presented any controversy whatsoever regarding the indigenous nature of the Community” and that “[t]his controversy was first brought forward by the State before the Inter-American Court,” therefore “this change in the State’s position can be considered in light of the estoppel principle.” 22. This Court verified that in fact the State presented the argument that the Community was not an indigenous or native group for the first time at the public hearing held before it. As has been previously stated by the Court, and since the State had access to the probative elements and this does not refer to supervening events, if, in the answering brief it submits to the Court, it presents a position that is contradictory with regard to the one maintained 14 The representatives referred specifically to a census performed in 2013. It is important to mention that the State, in its brief of August 11, 2014 (merits file, folio 1049), responded to this argument made by the representatives. However, said brief was forwarded in response to a note from the Secretariat requesting its observations to the annexes to the representatives’ final written arguments and a brief forwarded by the Commission. 15 Regarding the mentioned “change in their theory”, the representatives linked it to “historical information that the Garífuna people does not acknowledge because it is not precise and because there is documentary evidence that proves the Garífuna’s right over those territories.” 16 The representatives added that “the land occupied by Triunfo de la Cruz was abandoned by the Hicaque people when they retreated to the mountains due to the violent colonization process by the Spaniards.” 17 In its submission of the case, the Commission indicated that the Community is a “differentiated ethnic group” that has “asserted its rights in Honduras as an indigenous group and said nature was not put up to debate before the [Commission].” Additionally, in its Merits Report in the chapter on “Proven facts” it referred to how the Garífuna “identify themselves as an indigenous group of African culture.” 18